coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Ostrów Wielkopolski.
5.  On 3 February 2003 the applicant instituted civil proceedings for damages against W.U. before the Kielce Regional Court. On 4 February 2003 the case was transferred to the Kraków Regional Court. Hearings before that court were held on 8 May, 3 July, 14 and 23 October 2003. On the last date the court assigned an expert to prepare a report which was submitted to the court on 31 December 2003. Further hearings were scheduled for 20 April and 25 May 2004.
6.  By a judgment of 8 June 2004 the applicant’s claim was dismissed. On 1 December 2004 the appellate court quashed the first-instance judgment and the case was remitted.
7.  A hearing was held on 11 March 2005. On 2 May 2005 the Regional Court admitted evidence based on an expert opinion. The expert’s report was submitted to the court on 19 July 2005. As the parties objected, the court decided that a new expert should be found. However, it could not find one competent to examine the issues involved in the case.
8.  On 29 September 2005 the applicant complained that the proceedings were too lengthy. In October 2005 the court took steps to find an expert, to no avail.
9.  Ultimately the court decided that two experts should give their opinion as it was impossible to find one competent to deal with all aspects of the case. One expert was found and the task of preparing a partial opinion was assigned to him. On 27 January 2006 the case file was sent to him. Another expert was asked to prepare an opinion to complete the first one after he had received the case file with the first report. The full report was submitted to the court on 4 September 2006.
10.  On 2 and 3 October 2006 the parties filed their objections concerning the report. On 19 February and 27 March 2007 hearings were held. On the latter date the applicant modified and extended his claim. The next hearing was scheduled for 8 April 2007. On 23 May 2007 the court gave a judgment and allowed the applicant’s claim in part.
11.  The parties appealed. On 21 November 2007 the Kraków Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals. In February 2008 both parties lodged cassation appeals with the Supreme Court. The case is currently pending before that court.
12.  On an unspecified date the applicant filed, under the Law of 17 June 2004 (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”), a complaint about the breach of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time. He also claimed compensation for the excessive length of the proceedings.
13.  On 29 January 2007 the Kraków Court of Appeal found that from October 2005 until January 2006 the Regional Court had failed to conduct the proceedings expeditiously. It dismissed the applicant’s request to be awarded compensation and ordered the Regional Court to give a judgment on the merits of the case before July 2007.
14.  On 2 April 2007 the court rejected the applicant’s appeal against this decision, finding that no appeal was available in law against it.
4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Częstochowa.
5.  On 23 October 2003 the applicant, who is a police officer, was charged with abuse of powers.
6.  On 4 November 2003 the applicant was arrested by the police. On 5 November 2003 the applicant was released. The Kraków Appeal Prosecutor (Prokuratura Apelacyjna) suspended the applicant from professional duties and ordered that he be subjected to police supervision in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question. It further referred to the need to secure the proper conduct of the investigation.
7.  On 20 November 2003 the applicant lodged an application with the prosecutor, requesting access to the investigation file. On 28 November 2003 the prosecutor dismissed the application. He referred to the need to secure the proper conduct of the investigation.
8.  In the meantime, on 22 November 2003, the applicant had lodged an application for his suspension from professional duties to be lifted or replaced by another preventive measure. The application was dismissed by the Prosecutor of Appeal. In his decision the prosecutor referred to the need to secure the proper conduct of the investigation and the seriousness of the offences the applicant was charged with.
9.  In the course of the proceedings, on 4 March and 2 June 2004, 14 March 2005 and 28 April 2006, the applicant made unsuccessful applications for his suspension from professional duties to be lifted or replaced by another preventive measure and he appealed, likewise unsuccessfully, against decisions dismissing his applications. In his applications he referred to the poor financial situation of his family resulting from the lengthy application of the preventive measure.
10.  On 4 April 2006 the Kraków Appeal Prosecutor decided to obtain a psychiatric report on the applicant and his ability to stand trial.
11.  On 3 September 2007 the applicant lodged an application for his suspension from professional duties to be lifted or replaced by another preventive measure. On 2 October 2007 the Kraków Prosecutor of Appeal lifted the preventive measure.
12.  In the course of the investigation the proceedings were severed on several occasions and of the 110 suspects in this case 75 were indicted. However, the investigation concerning the remaining suspects, including the applicant, has not yet been completed.
4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Szydłowiec.
5.  On 7 June 2005 the applicant lodged a civil claim for compensation against the court’s bailiff and the Przysucha District Court. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the Radom District Court (Sąd Rejonowy).
6.  On 1 January 2006 the Radom District Court exempted the applicant from court fees. The court considered that the applicant had substantiated his difficult financial situation. He was unemployed, received no unemployment benefit and thus could not pay court fees.
7.  On 31 July 2006 the Radom District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. The applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment.
8.  On 9 November 2006 the Radom Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the appeal. On 27 December 2006 the applicant was served with the written reasons for the judgment. He was instructed that he could lodge a cassation appeal (skarga kasacyjna), which had to be prepared by a lawyer, with the Supreme Court.
9.  On 12 January 2007 the applicant requested the Regional Court to appoint him a legal-aid lawyer who would lodge on his behalf the cassation appeal.
10.  On 18 January 2007 the court dismissed the applicant’s request for appointment of a legal-aid lawyer. The decision contained no reasons.
11.  The applicant appealed against this decision and requested the court to prepare written reasons for it.
12.  On 1 February 2007 the Radom Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request to prepare the reasons for the decision of 18 January 2007 and for those reasons to be delivered to him. The decision contains no reasons.
13.  The applicant appealed against the decision of 1 February 2007 but on 15 February 2007 the Radom Regional Court rejected the appeal as inadmissible in law.
6.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Norilsk in the Krasnoyarsk Region of the Russian Federation.
7.  In August 1998 the applicant, formerly an engineer in a public company, was made redundant. On 3 September 1998 she was registered in the Norilsk Employment Centre.
8.  As the unemployment allowances were paid to the applicant after a substantial delay and, as she believed, their calculation was not correct, in March 2000 she sued the Norilsk Employment Centre for the allowance arrears, adjusted for inflation, and interest thereon.
9.  On 25 September 2000 the Norilsk Town Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region allowed the applicant's claims in part. It awarded her 677.35 Russian roubles (RUR) for arrears and RUR 4,568.53 for the indexation of the arrears to take account of inflation. Basing its award on Article 395 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation the court also granted the applicant RUR 8,102.50 as interest on belated payments.
10.  On 2 and 25 October 2000 the applicant lodged an appeal, arguing that the claims rejected by the first-instance court should have been granted.
11.  On 9 October 2000 the Norilsk Employment Centre lodged an appeal. It claimed that labour legislation did not provide for an interest on unemployment allowances and therefore requested that the judgment in this part be quashed.
12.  On 12 October 2000 the Norilsk Town Prosecutor filed an appeal (protest) against the judgment, exercising his power under Article 282 of the RSFSR Code of Civil Procedure. He submitted that the first-instance court had erroneously applied provisions of civil law to labour law relations and therefore unlawfully granted interest on belated payments in the applicant's favour. In his view, no interest was payable in respect of belated unemployment allowances, thus he requested the Court of Appeal to quash the judgment in this part. The Prosecutor also supported the part of the judgment which rejected the remainder of the applicant's claims.
13.  A copy of the prosecutor's protest was served on the applicant on 18 October 2000, and she submitted her objections on 25 October 2000.
14.  Having examined the appeals and the prosecutor's protest and having heard the judge-rapporteur and the prosecutor, on 29 November 2000 the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court upheld the arguments made by the Employment Centre and the prosecutor. Finding that the Civil Code was not applicable in the sphere of unemployment benefits, it quashed the first-instance court's judgment in the part granting the applicant RUR 8,102.50 as interest on belated payments.
15.  The applicant's attempts to institute supervisory review proceedings proved to be unsuccessful.
7.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in the United Kingdom.
8.  The applicant claimed that until 14 August 1974 he and his family used to live in Morphou (Cyprus) in a detached house with a yard (area: 229 sq. m). This property was registered in the name of the applicant’s wife under plot no. 315, sheet/plan 19/32.5.2. On 14 August 1974, as the Turkish forces were advancing, the applicant and his family fled their home leaving behind all its contents, including precious personal belongings.
9.  The applicant also claimed that he was the owner of the following plots of land in northern Cyprus:
(a)  Nicosia/Kapouti, plot no. 576, sheet/plan 19/16, field, area: 5,017 sq. m;
(b)  Kyrenia/Livera, plot no. 39/1, sheet/plan 5/62W1, field, area: 112,149 sq. m;
(c)  Kyrenia/Livera, plot no. 14, sheet/plan 5/62W2, field, area: 171,549 sq. m;
(d)  Kyrenia/Livera, plot no. 34, sheet/plan 5/63W1, field, area: 22,074 sq. m;
(e)  Kyrenia/Livera, plot no. 45, sheet/plan 5/63W1, field, area: 11,582 sq. m.
10.  In support of his claim of ownership the applicant produced the relevant certificates of registration and affirmations of ownership issued by the Republic of Cyprus.
11.  The applicant alleged that from 14 August 1974 onwards he had not been able to return to his house and had been continuously prevented from exercising his property rights and enjoying his properties.
7.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Nicosia.
8.  The applicant claimed that until July 1974 he used to live with his family in a house belonging to his parents in Lapithos, a village in the District of Kyrenia. In July 1974, as the Turkish army was advancing, the applicant and his family had been forced to leave Lapithos. Ever since, they have not been able to return to the applicant’s parents’ house.
9.  On 20 April 1990 the applicant’s parents donated half of their house to the applicant. They also donated to him half of three other houses, two shops and a number of plots of land and water installations in Lapithos. The remaining half of the properties mentioned above was transferred to the applicant’s sister. The transfers at issue were recorded in the Land Registry of the Republic of Cyprus.
10.  The applicant produced the relevant affirmations of ownership issued by the Republic of Cyprus. According to these documents, the applicant’s properties could be described as follows:
(a)  plot no. 288/3, sheet/plan 11/14 E.1, plot of land – olive grove, area 2,282 sq. m;
(b)  plots nos. 511 and 513, sheet/plan 11/14E.2, plots of land, area: 3,862 sq. m and 3,405 sq. m respectively;
(c)  plots nos. 19, 20, 28 and 29, sheet/plan 11/15W.1, plots of land, area: 1,053 sq. m, 1,024 sq. m, 1,769 sq. m and 1,405 sq. m respectively;
(d)  plots nos. 98 and 128/1, sheet/plan 11/15W.2, lemon plantations, area: 5,219 sq. m and 1,469 sq. m respectively;
(e)  plot no. 296, sheet/plan 11/15W.2, lemon plantation with bore hole, area: 4,877 sq. m;
(f)  plots nos. 22, 22/1, 22/2, 22/3 and 22/4, sheet/plan 11/15W.2 and E.2, lemon plantation with two wells and one ground storey residence, area: 7,032 sq. m;
(g)  plot no. 42, sheet/plan 11/15W.2.E (no. 2), lemon plantation, area: 1,018 sq. m;
(h)  plot no. 104, sheet/plan 11/15W.2.E (no. 2), tank of an area of 37 sq. m with a freshwater spring;
(i)  plots nos. 60/1/2, 63/1 and 63/3, sheet/plan 11.23E.1,W (no. 1), lemon plantation (area: 2,358 sq. m) with a bore hole and one tank (area: 84 sq. m); on this property had been constructed: a ground storey residence of an area of 152.25 sq. m; two shops of an area of 56 sq. m; two semidetached ground storey residences (areas: 152.25 sq. m and 63 sq. m respectively); one residence of an area of 219.41 sq. m;
(j)  plots nos. 53, 773, 774, 775 and 776, sheet/plan 11/23W.2,E.1 and 11/23W1E (no. 2), right to use a freshwater spring.
11.  The applicant alleged that the Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus had prevented him from using and/or enjoying his properties.
6.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Siemirowice.
7.  On 7 April 2000 the Wejherowo District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) convicted the applicant of domestic violence and sentenced him to a one‑year period of imprisonment suspended on probation for 4 years. The court found that between June 1998 and October 1999 the applicant had ill‑treated his girlfriend in that he had beaten her and abused her verbally.
8.  It appears that the applicant breached the terms of his probation and on 20 September 2002 the Wejherowo District Court ordered that his sentence be enforced. On 2 April 2003 he started to serve it in the Wejherowo Detention Centre.
9.  On 18 July 2003 the applicant’s father died. The applicant submits that he immediately asked the prison authorities for leave to attend his father’s funeral. On 20 July the applicant’s girlfriend delivered him his father’s death certificate.
10.  On 21 July 2003, a Monday, the applicant made a formal application for leave to attend the funeral, which was to be held on 22 July 2003.
11.  On 21 July 2003 the Penitentiary Judge of the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sędzia Sądu Okręgowego Wydziału Penitencjarnego) refused the leave request. The reasons given for the judge’s decision were as follows:
“The convicted person’s application cannot be allowed. The grounds relied on [by the applicant] to justify allowing him to leave the prison cannot be considered especially important.
Consequently, since the conditions specified in Article 141 § 4 of [the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences] had not been fulfilled, it has been decided as above.”
12.  The decision also included an instruction on the possibility to lodge an appeal against the decision with the Gdańsk Penitentiary Court within 7 days of the date of notification of the decision.
13.  The decision was notified to the applicant on 22 July 2003. The applicant did not appeal against it as the funeral had already taken place and he considered that his request to leave prison had become without purpose.
4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Istanbul. He was detained at the Inebolu prison at the time of the events.
5.  Upon the applicant’s request he was examined by a doctor at the prison clinic on 14 January 2004.
6.  According to the prison clinic’s registry provided by the Government, the applicant was examined by the prison doctor who considered that he was suffering from a tension headache. The doctor decided to transfer the applicant to a neurology department of a hospital. The Government submitted that, since there was no neurology department at Inebolu State Hospital, the applicant was transferred to Kastamonu State Hospital where he was examined by a doctor at the Neurology Department on 25 March 2004.
7.  In the meantime, on 19 January 2004 the applicant filed a petition with the Inebolu Judge for the Execution of Sentences, after an oral refusal by the prison authorities, requesting copies of the doctor’s report issued after his medical examination of 14 January 2004 and the relevant pages of the prison clinic’s registry.
8.  On 21 January 2004 the Inebolu Judge of Execution ordered the prison authorities to provide the applicant with copies of the requested documents. The applicant was so provided.
9.  On 26 January 2004 the Inebolu public prosecutor filed an objection against the above decision. Referring to the spirit and purpose of a circular dated 5 December 1990, he claimed, inter alia, that the delivery of the originals or copies of any official prison documents to detainees or convicted persons was not permitted, in practice, on grounds of security and public order.
10.  On 27 January 2004 the Inebolu Assize Court accepted the prosecutor’s objection on these grounds.
11.  On 30 January 2004 the documents in question were reclaimed by the prison authorities.
12.  On 29 March 2004, the applicant requested the prison authorities to provide him with a copy of the medical report and prescription issued at the Kastamonu State Hospital following his medical examination on 25 March 2004. On the same day he received them.
13.  The applicant’s further request from the Ministry of Justice to quash the Assize Court’s judgment by a written order (yazılı emir) was also rejected on 4 May 2004.
14.  On 26 November 2004 the applicant was released from prison.
4.  The applicants were born in 1951, 1961 and 1956 respectively and live in Kiskunhalas.
5.  On 1 February 1995 the applicants were charged with soliciting prostitution (üzletszerű kéjelgés elősegítése). The prosecution authorities asserted that the applicants, acting as a criminal gang, had been involved in running a brothel with minors working there as prostitutes.
6.  Having held seven hearings, the Kiskunhalas District Court found the applicants guilty as charged on 21 November 1997. They appealed. On 18 June 1998 the Bács-Kiskun County Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the District Court.
7.  In the resumed proceedings, the District Court held three hearings and acquitted the applicants on 12 April 2005. The prosecution appealed.
8.  On 20 October 2005 the Regional Court upheld the applicants’ acquittal on the ground of lack of evidence. It noted that during the proceedings relevant evidence, in particular an audio tape recorded by a journalist investigating the matter, had been lost and that some key witnesses for the prosecution had withdrawn their testimonies before a Romanian notary public. However, it did not investigate the circumstances of these events.
4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Snežnica.
5.  On 13 March 1998 the applicant filed an action with the Čadca District Court. He claimed compensation in a labour dispute. On 11 September 1998 the case was transferred to the Považská Bystrica District Court.
6.  In the period following the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 14 February 2006 (see below) the Považská Bystrica District Court held three hearings. It also requested the Čadca District Court to hear witnesses and twice urged it to do so.
7.  On 15 March 2007 the Považská Bystrica District Court granted the applicant’s claim. The judgment became final on 12 May 2007.
8.  On 14 February 2006 the Constitutional Court found that the Považská Bystrica District Court had violated the applicant’s right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay and his right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time.
9.  The Constitutional Court held that the case was not complex. Although the applicant had to a certain extent contributed to the length of the proceedings through insufficient cooperation, that had not influenced the overall length of the proceedings. Delays imputable to the Považská Bystrica District Court had amounted to a total of 4 years.
10.  The Constitutional Court awarded the applicant SKK 40,000 (the equivalent of 1,066 euros at that time) as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It ordered the reimbursement of the applicant’s legal costs and ordered the Považská Bystrica District Court to avoid any further delay in the proceedings.
4.  The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in Istanbul.
5.  On 10 July 2002 the applicant was arrested and placed in the anti‑terrorist branch of the Istanbul police headquarters after, during a road check, police officers saw a photograph of Abdullah Öcalan and the slogans “Biji Serok Apo” (“Long live President Apo”) and “Biji Kurdistan” (“Long live Kurdistan”) on the screen of the applicant’s mobile telephone.
6.  On the same day, the applicant made statements to the police and, subsequently, to the Gebze Magistrates’ Court, which ordered his detention on remand, having regard to the state of the evidence, the applicant’s statements to the police and the nature of the alleged offence, namely, membership of the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party), an illegal organisation.
7.  On 11 July 2002 the applicant lodged an objection to the remand order. No decision has been taken regarding the applicant’s objection.
8.  On the same day, the Gebze public prosecutor issued a decision finding that he lacked jurisdiction. The investigation file was subsequently transferred to the public prosecutor’s office at the Istanbul State Security Court.
9.  On 1 August 2002 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court charged the applicant with membership of an illegal organisation, under Article 168 § 2 of the former Criminal Code.
10.  On 12 August 2002 the Istanbul State Security Court ordered the applicant’s continued detention, having regard to the nature of the alleged offence, the state of the evidence and the date of the initial order for the applicant’s detention.
11.  On 25 October 2002 the State Security Court held the first hearing in the case. The applicant’s representative requested the first‑instance court to release the applicant. The court accepted the request and ordered the applicant’s release pending trial.
12.  On 5 September 2003 the Istanbul State Security Court acquitted the applicant.
4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Krasnoznamensk, a town in the Moscow Region.
5.  At the material time the applicant was a lieutenant colonel of Space Forces. After 22 years of service, he was due to retire on reaching the age limit in August 2004. Under domestic law, long-serving servicemen in need of better housing (the applicant met this condition) could be discharged against their will only if the command provided them with such housing. When preparing his discharge, the applicant insisted that the command provide him with a flat and did not agree to be discharged “flatless” (бесквартирным).
6.  As the flat had not been provided in time, the applicant sued his command. On 25 February 2005 the Krasnoznamensk Garrison Military Court ordered the command to provide the applicant with housing at his place of service and, once this done, to discharge him. This judgment became binding on 10 March 2005 but was not enforced immediately.
7.  In February 2006 the applicant was offered a flat in Bolshie Vyazyomy, a village 3.5 km away from Krasnoznamensk. The applicant refused this offer, insisting that the flat should be located in Krasnoznamensk itself.
8.  On 15 June 2007 the applicant received a flat in Krasnoznamensk. He was discharged later the same year.